Jump to content
Free Northman Reborn

Master thread on what the Show means for the book plot

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Maybe LF is doing it. But is seems difficult to keep someone consistently on the doorstep of death from the birth to the age of 8, with poison Which one would do that? Every poison used in ASoIaF has been described some way before
Besides Lysa had 5 miscarriages and 2 stillborn before Robin. No wonder the boy is sick.

Or lysa didn t want to have kids with jon arryn and took something to kill the babies. 

I don t think there is a problem with robin getting phisical better. The problem is that the kid has mental issues that would take years to cure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, divica said:

I don t think there is a problem with robin getting phisical better. The problem is that the kid has mental issues that would take years to cure...

Right.  Could he get physically better?  I suppose it's conceivable.  Could he recover from all the trauma of his rearing - from Lysa to "make the bad man fly" to LF killing his mother to Alayne, and all that's in between?  It is very hard to think a kid could come back from all that, especially when he was described as so weak from the moment we met him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

:rolleyes: I was just giving you the courtesy of telling you I'm going to cease replying on the matter.  Sorry for giving you such courtesy?

Yeah, in the same reply you called me ignorant and disingenuous.  That is not courtesy, its the internet equivalent of pouting because someone is refusing to accept you are right about something. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

First, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of ad hominem if you think that's one of them.

Here we go again, you are right, everyone else is wrong.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If you disagree that Bran will be King, fine.  But don't tell me there's "no logic" to it, because there is.

There is no logic to it.

  • He can't have children
  • He's no blood claim to the throne
  • He's a child himself and the realm vetoed the last child king because of the realm's history with regents
  • He worships a minority faith, when we know that a King has to been anointed by the High Septon
  • He's been presumed dead for quite a few years
  • He's lived on the run and in a cave for a number of years, forfitting the traditional noble education
  • He's a cripple in a realm where strength is seen as key to leadership. His own Karstark cousins pitied him in the first book and thought him better off dead
  • He has no connections to the vast majority of the Houses in Westeros

Him becoming King is illogical.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

That's what I was originally responding to.  And in this specific case, don't tell me it's anathema to the medieval backdrop Martin 

But it is an anathema to the medieval world GRRM is writing about.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

You're the one that's being disparaging there,

How so.I've said multiple times we disagree on this. Its not a big deal, different opinions are allowed. You seem to not like the idea.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

and doing so with an argument that's simply wrong. 

Except its not and you've not bothered to even try to explain why its wrong.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

Nothing annoys me more than the guy who's like "well, actually, that's historically inaccurate"

That annoys you more than racism? Than sexism? Than genoicide? Wow, that's a pretty brave thing to admit.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

when, no, actually, that's just because you have a vapid understanding of history and politics.

lol sure. Based on a few posts on a fictional universe you are able to figure out that I have a vapid understanding of history and politics. Pretty good detective work. What star sign am I? What did I have for breakfast today?

 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

So, yes, I will continue to say that as long as people pose that their interpretations are somehow innately superior to others.

I don't think mine are superior to yours, I think we have a difference of opinion. Not once have I said or suggested you lack an understanding of certain things because of a few posts on an internet forum. you are clearly taking this conversation too seriously.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

 

  Particularly when you denigrate the opposition in such a douchy way like you do.

Yes, I'm the rude person in the back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DMC said:

A council demanding permanent power - which would be the idea in appointing a monarch not only without but that cannot have a successor - is very much in line with middle-age history.  Acting like this is some huge paradigm shift is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Which midle age history are you talking about? Because I know of no monarchy where the kings didn t have heirs to take their place. If you are talking about monarchies where the king doesn t have absolute powers they did exist. However you are ignoring the major problems with the sistem the show established.

Everytime a king dies there would be potential to start a war. As long as close to half the kingdoms suported 1 person and the other kingdoms supported another person then they would need to fight in order to decide who would be king.

Then no king would be able to trust the lords because it might be better for them if he dies and they can chose someone that would be more beneficial for them.

Given that the kings are chosen from the powerful families they would always favour some families over other families. This would lead to war…

And I am sure you can think of more problems with this sistem. It is very flawed! The sistem of the iron islands is much better!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, divica said:

Which midle age history are you talking about? Because I know of no monarchy where the kings didn t have heirs to take their place. If you are talking about monarchies where the king doesn t have absolute powers they did exist. However you are ignoring the major problems with the sistem the show established.

Everytime a king dies there would be potential to start a war. As long as close to half the kingdoms suported 1 person and the other kingdoms supported another person then they would need to fight in order to decide who would be king.

Then no king would be able to trust the lords because it might be better for them if he dies and they can chose someone that would be more beneficial for them.

Given that the kings are chosen from the powerful families they would always favour some families over other families. This would lead to war…

And I am sure you can think of more problems with this sistem. It is very flawed! The sistem of the iron islands is much better!

 

 

Yea, I would appreciate an example. Simon De Montfort in England I suppose (although that entailed a lot more than picking a king). The Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem had elective elements, although the hereditary principle was still present. And in the HRE elections were contested, won by bribes and you had wars between rival candidates. 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, in the same reply you called me ignorant and disingenuous.  That is not courtesy, its the internet equivalent of pouting because someone is refusing to accept you are right about something. 

No, again, I called an argument you were making either ignorant or disingenuous.  Perhaps you can't understand the difference?

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But it is an anathema to the medieval world GRRM is writing about.

No, it's not.  There were many quasi-legislative bodies in both actual medieval history and in Martin's world.  That they'd intentionally pick a King that cannot have a successor is a natural progression of this that is indeed quite logical, and I've outlined why repeatedly.

12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Except its not and you've not bothered to even try to explain why its wrong.

It is wrong to say there's no backing in medieval history for such an ending, which is explicitly what you were arguing a few posts back.  I don't need to explain why that's wrong, it just is wrong.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That annoys you more than racism? Than sexism? Than genoicide? Wow, that's a pretty brave thing to admit.

Huh?  Who said that?  WTF is wrong with your debate style?  You just whip out random things when you have nothing else to say?

14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Not once have I said or suggested you lack an understanding of certain things because of a few posts on an internet forum. you are clearly taking this conversation too seriously.

You have, repeatedly, suggested anyone that thinks Bran will become King is stupid, in myriad ways.

14 minutes ago, divica said:

Which midle age history are you talking about? Because I know of no monarchy where the kings didn t have heirs to take their place. If you are talking about monarchies where the king doesn t have absolute powers they did exist. However you are ignoring the major problems with the sistem the show established.

To be clear, in that context I'm referring to lords asserting more influence on the crown.  In which there's plenty of historical precedent.  But no, I don't know of any historical precedent of a council or legislative body intentionally choosing a monarch that they know will not produce heirs.  That's what the argument is about.

17 minutes ago, divica said:

Everytime a king dies there would be potential to start a war. As long as close to half the kingdoms suported 1 person and the other kingdoms supported another person then they would need to fight in order to decide who would be king.

That's kinda the point, though, right?  Even with agnatic primogeniture, every time a king dies it seems a war starts lately.  In fact, the king doesn't even have to die.  There became competing claims on top of competing claims and cruelly incompetent rulers on top of benignly incompetent rulers.  A reconvening council is a new try in attempting to cease such crises that will likely seem neverending to those that survive the second Dance.  It's like creating the League of Nations after WWI.  Obviously, that didn't work out too well, but it did give a framework for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yea, I would appreciate an example, especially to the 'cannot have a successor' bit (the Papacy maybe). The Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem had elective elements, although the hereditary principle was still present. And in the HRE elections were contested, won by bribes and you had wars between rival candidates. 

The roman empire had a republic phase and a empire phase.

I think you are talking about the republic phase where there were wars, poiltical plots, bribes and whatever to win elections into positions of power (and I am not sure how romans rose in the military). But in this phase they didn t have a single leader.

However, in the empire phase the emperors chosed their heirs that took their position after they died. 

The papacy is a more interesting example. However the pope's power is a very special kind of power. First, I think there was a certain taboo about going against the pope because of religion. Then the pope didn t use his armies to impose his will, the cristians would do as he said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, again, I called an argument you were making either ignorant or disingenuous.  Perhaps you can't understand the difference?

Again, another attack on someone's intelligence. Why not debate my points rather than continually attack?

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it's not.  There were many quasi-legislative bodies in both actual medieval history and in Martin's world.  That they'd intentionally pick a King that cannot have a successor is a natural progression of this that is indeed quite logical, and I've outlined why repeatedly.

Then copy and paste those replies.

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

It is wrong to say there's no backing in medieval history for such an ending,

Please share such times

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

which is explicitly what you were arguing a few posts back.  I don't need to explain why that's wrong, it just is wrong.

Well yeah, you do. Simply telling people they are wrong is not going to end many conversations. Sufficiently explaining why I'm wrong will likely do. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Huh?  Who said that?  WTF is wrong with your debate style?  You just whip out random things when you have nothing else to say?

You did. Read what you just said.  "Nothing annoys me more than the guy who's like "well, actually, that's historically inaccurate"

I was clearly being flippant, I kind of understood that you were being a little hysterical when you claimed nothing annoys you more than x

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

You have, repeatedly, suggested anyone that thinks Bran will become King is stupid, in myriad ways.

Can you quote these times because I'm pretty sure I have not. You might be a little sensitive to people disagreeing with you. To be clear, I do not think you are stupid, I think we have a different opinion on a fictional universe and given its not yet finished either of us can be right.

But I disagree with your premise and rather converse with me about why I'm wrong you have continually belittled my position and now education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear, in that context I'm referring to lords asserting more influence on the crown.  In which there's plenty of historical precedent.  But no, I don't know of any historical precedent of a council or legislative body intentionally choosing a monarch that they know will not produce heirs.  That's what the argument is about.

But in westeros the lords already have a lot of influence on the crown. Most kingdoms operate almost independently only paying taxes to the king, answering his call to war and obeying the laws…

In westeros the kings even have to constantly forge aliances to hape the support of the high lords to make certain decisions… The closer you look the less absolute power the kings have...

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's kinda the point, though, right?  Even with agnatic primogeniture, every time a king dies it seems a war starts lately.  In fact, the king doesn't even have to die.  There became competing claims on top of competing claims and cruelly incompetent rulers on top of benignly incompetent rulers.  A reconvening council is a new try in attempting to cease such crises that will likely seem neverending to those that survive the second Dance.  It's like creating the League of Nations after WWI.  Obviously, that didn't work out too well, but it did give a framework for the future.

No. The wars started because stannis spread the word that joff was a bastard and the north revolted because joff killed ned.

As long as there are lords with thousands of soldiers that answer to them there can t be diplomacy in westeros. It doesn t make sense… And even if a council choses a king it doesn t mean that if a person some lords like more apears they won t support him...

The only thing this method of chosing a king offers is a sucession crisis with a potential war each time a king dies… IT would be much better to have a sistem similar to the Iron islands where the nobles can chose the next king among the descendents of the dead king. It should garante that someone like joff doesn t become king and at the same time minize the risk of war because normally siblings don t go to war between themselves...

Edited by divica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, divica said:

But in westeros the lords already have a lot of influence on the crown. Most kingdoms operate almost independently only paying taxes to the king, answering his call to war and obeying the laws…

In westeros the kings even have to constantly forge aliances to hape the support of the high lords to make certain decisions… The closer you look the less absolute power the kings have...

The great lords of Westeros obviously ceded considerable influence upon Aegon's conquering.  That power has been centralized for 300 years in King's Landing, and they have had little to no say in who is running this new centralized system.  It makes a lot of sense that those lords, when probably there's very little left of them standing after a years of consistent and absolute bloodshed, would insist "hey, we're choosing from now on."

9 minutes ago, divica said:

IT would be much better to have a sistem similar to the Iron islands where the nobles can chose the next king among the descendents of the dead king.

The system I'm suggesting IS very similar to a kingsmoot, even more so than the way you describe it.  A kingsmoot is not solely derived from descendants of the predecessor.  They will be favored in such a society, of course, but we literally saw non-Greyjoys make claims in the only canon kingsmoot that's been depicted.

@Bernie Mac, you really like arguing about arguing, and it's actually kind of fascinating how easily I got under your skin.  I wasn't even trying.  I'm going to stop now because this is not productive to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 9:27 PM, divica said:

Because stannis taking winterfell is completly useless. The north is divided and he can t unite it without a stark. Wether he has winterfell or not is completly indiferent… Ther northerns won t march south and won t completly join him… 

Luckily the book is not the show and Stannis strategic goal is to get more support by supporting others. Plus Winterfell is burned down anyway, it is not a good strategic position to begin with. It's a symbol. 

And then there is White Harbor, the Reeds, the Riverlands and Lady Stoneheart. Overall, the Northerners sending more support south to protect the Riverlands, was exactly the plan before the mess. 

Book is book and show is show. And show memes like a divided north or stubborn Northerners (while nobody else has the problems) are not an issue. Everybody has a divided situation. Stannis is the symbol of a divided situation. And as always, he has to win people over to support him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Luckily the book is not the show and Stannis strategic goal is to get more support by supporting others. Plus Winterfell is burned down anyway, it is not a good strategic position to begin with. It's a symbol. 

And then there is White Harbor, the Reeds, the Riverlands and Lady Stoneheart. Overall, the Northerners sending more support south to protect the Riverlands, was exactly the plan before the mess. 

Book is book and show is show. And show memes like a divided north or stubborn Northerners (while nobody else has the problems) are not an issue. Everybody has a divided situation. Stannis is the symbol of a divided situation. And as always, he has to win people over to support him. 

Book stannis wanted to give castles of the NW to his southerns and winterfell to the karstarks… The north won t support him with him doing things like this...

And all the people you mentioned don t support stannis. Lady stoneheart and the riverlands would support a stark because of kin or because he is robb's heir and LS knows that robb named jon… White harbor won t support stannis without rickon and he looks very far away. Most people believe the reeds know about robbs will.

Then robb's plan was exactly the oposite you are talking about. He wanted to go back north...

And the divided north is because some people will want to follow robb's will, some the boltons, some rickon and some stannis. And stannis can t unite the north! I would bet that the clans will abandon him now that farya is safe and he seems doomed… And even if they don t leave him now they will after winterfell is taken because they didn t swore themselves to stannis. They joined him to save farya and kill boltons and so far they have come to dislike stannis and his southerns that worship r'hllor and burn people alive…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, divica said:

Or lysa didn t want to have kids with jon arryn and took something to kill the babies. 

I don t think there is a problem with robin getting phisical better. The problem is that the kid has mental issues that would take years to cure...

A lot of ifs, with no evidence. Nothing suggests Lysa didn't want Robin. Whatever she expected from LF, Robin was before. Jon had 2 wives before, with nothing better than stillbirths. What is difficult in accepting Robin is sick, damaged? Even if it was poison, as unlikely as it is, the damages are there. The boy is wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Bran is king because he is Jon's heir as his next male relative? Idk just throwing things out there. But I guess if he or Rickon is considered Jon's heir (here presuming people consider him to be the rightful heir and he died or abdicated) then people would have a reason to want him to be king, maybe under a regency. That said, Westeros will be unrecognizable by the end so I'm not sure if there will be a king of a unified Westeros. I myself veer more towards the split kingdoms theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He can't have children

Some might consider that a feature, not a bug, especially if they are not interested in a dynastic monarchy, but something closer to a Republic.  It means they don't have to worry about any children making a claim

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He's no blood claim to the throne

Neither does anybody else.  The Targaryens are dead, as well as all the Baratheons.   At least the legitimate ones, anyway.  The Starks happen to be one of the most respected houses left.

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He worships a minority faith, when we know that a King has to been anointed by the High Septon

He was brought up in both faiths.  Even if he currently worships the Old Gods,, I don't know that that is inconsistent with anointment by the Faith.

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He's lived on the run and in a cave for a number of years, forfitting the traditional noble education

He had a pretty decent education at Winterfell before that from Maester Luwin, which puts him well above that vast majority of the population.  

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:
  • He's a cripple in a realm where strength is seen as key to leadership. His own Karstark cousins pitied him in the first book and thought him better off dead
  • He has no connections to the vast majority of the Houses in Westeros

I tend to think that he is chosen because he is a compromise choice that they think will be a weak leader who can be controlled.  In which case, his weaknesses might be considered advantages, or at least serious debits.

Considering how little interest the showrunners showed in Bran, I cannot imagine that they made him the end-game leader unless that is what GRRM told them was going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

GRRM has already shown just this in Essos with Astapor reverting back to a slave city shortly after Dany has left. Obviously GRRM does not think slavery is acceptable, but he's also not whitewashing the problem by having it solved so quickly. Westeros is not changing its culture and values in the space of the series.

It is and it ain't. If you go by the show (and I believe the book ending will follow the same broad strokes) you will see that from now on the king will be chosen by an election and that one of the most culturaly diverse areas of the realm is now independent. Also, a new culture has been integrated to Westeros (dothraki), a woman has notoriously became a knight, and so on and so forth. All those things stablish precedents for further democratization, further secession, and further social advancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 2:43 AM, divica said:

Me too. I still have no clue why people would accept bran on the IT but I agree with everything else. 

In-universe people, or us outside looking in?

The latter is obvious from reading Book 1 Chapter 1.

As for the former, we'll have to see what George devises to get us where he plainly means to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

In-universe people, or us outside looking in?

The latter is obvious from reading Book 1 Chapter 1.

As for the former, we'll have to see what George devises to get us where he plainly means to go. 

Yeah... After reading the first chapter it is obvious that people would accept an 8 year old Stark kid without claim to the IT as king... 

We don t even need to read the rest of the books and know what happens to the boy... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 2:46 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

The difference is that an independent North is clearly and consistently set up in the books, whereas Bran as King has no logical basis in George’s work.

Sure it does. Loads, even.

His POV is the first opening one in Book 1 Chapter 1. Read that chapter carefully again.

It's Bran’s journey that's the archetype, the monomyth, the hero's journey. Not Jon’s. Bran’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Sure it does. Loads, even.

His POV is the first opening one in Book 1 Chapter 1. Read that chapter carefully again.

It's Bran’s journey that's the archetype, the monomyth, the hero's journey. Not Jon’s. Bran’s.

Last Hero, master of magic, High priest of the Old Gods, immortal greenseer, sure. Agree with all of that.

King of the Seven Kingdoms, nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×